This is an archieve. Please do not edit it in any way.

Welcome, from Journalist

Welcome!

Hello, Johnski/Archieve01, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Since others have mistook me for a program or bot of some kind that automatically welcomes newusers, Ill just like to start putting it out there that Im 100% real :) ^{Journalist ^C./^{Holla @ me!}}

Johnski, glad you signed up for a handle. Sorry I haven't been around. A combination of being sick as well as being pretty pissed at one of the admins for an off the cuff (and PMS type) remark. Anyway, I'm kind of pissed right now about Wikipedia. I might end up disappearing for awhile.

I really want to start a blog and write about what's going on in the US. I've been pretty tired lately with work and all and can't really seem to muster the energy to do much. Hopefully in a few days things will change. Davidpdx 9/22/05 1:52 (UTC)

Hi Davidpdx, Nice to see your human touch, and learn more about what is going on with you. Sorry to learn that you've been sick. Hope you have a quick and full recovery, and that you don't leave wikipedia, as I'm sure you must have a lot to offer. Sorry I reverted something without seeing this first.Johnski 06:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John I was sick, but also kind of mad. There was a heated argument over the Ray Nagin page and still is the last time I checked. It is amazing the politcal garbage people will put into articles. Unfortuately, I got in kind of a yelling match and lost it. That's why I disappeared for a few days.

Anyway here is an old email address if you want to send me anything. I'd prefer links and things copy/pasted versus attachments. I'm alwasy so worried I'll get a virus or something. I don't know if your like me, but I'd die without my computer! LOL Anyway, let me know. Also feel free to leave a message on My Talk Page. Just to let you know there is a rather large time diffrence between where you are and where I am (maybe 9-16 hours depending on where you are). Also I will be out this weekend, I'll tell you about it next week. Davidpdx 9/28/05 11:29

John I have posted questions on the DOM talk page. As I stated, the page should not be reverted until a consensus is reached. This consensus should go for all DOM references such as the Ecclesiastical State, Ecclesiastical Government, Bokak Atoll and other islands DOM is claiming to have soverignty over. Davidpdx 9/30/05 4:30 (UTC)

I will be out until Tuesday as I'm going on vacation. You probably won't hear from my again until then. Davidpdx 9/30/05 13:00 (UTC)

Solkope

I posted a reply on Solkope. I'm walking away from this argument because in my opinion, it is like tossing my energy down a black hole... RfC is probably the only way this will ever be resolved.--Isotope23 13:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Melchizedek

crossposted from User talk:Who

Been trying to get more balance and keep facts straight on this subject. Can you help instead merely reverting?Johnski 04:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I was mainly reverting the re-addition of a previously deleted category. The only other revert was on a clear 3RR violation by the anon, that I reverted back to the "last known good version". I would first suggest requesting the other users start a discussion on a talk page and cease the edit wars. If this does not work, try reporting them on WP:3RR. I am currently out of town and have very limited computer time, and am currently trying to reduce a backlog of CFD moves. I appologize I cannot help further at this time. ∞Who ?¿? 05:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for Davidpdx to return for the discussion.Johnski 05:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of putting some notes in. In addition, I am opening this up as a request for discussion. Please see my notes below about the DOM and Bokak Atoll pages. Davidpdx 10/3/05 8:13 (UTC)

Removal of NPOV tag on Bokak Atoll

Please DO NOT remove NPOV tag on Bokak Atoll. The material in this article IS being disputed. If you remove the tag again, I will report it as vandalism. Davidpdx 10/3/05 8:53 (UTC) If this is addressed to me, I don't remember removing itJohnski 06:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting DOM article

Please stop reverting this article until there is a consensus or compromise langauge that has been agreed to. The version posted by 03:54, 3 October 2005 El C is the version that should remain until further notice. Doing otherwise in insistance of compromise that does not exsist severely damages your creditablity. It also could hamper any possiblity of others to work with you to come to a meaningful agreement. Davidpdx 10/3/05 9:04 (UTC)

DOM

I'm curious if your concern for this subject is motivated by your religious faith and if you see Melchizedek's claim to ecclesiastical statehood as a threat to that faith.

No. I believe in open study of all religions. I have studied religions with which I emphatically disagree, including Catholicism, Orthodox Judaism, B'nai Noach, and Islam, sometimes to such depths that I think my wife feared I was planning to convert. I do not believe in the principle of withholding information about a religion on the idea that it may be a threat to true faith. And I certainly fear nothing from the DOM "religion." I see no grain of truth there nor do I even see anything of interest.

Thankfully on Wikipedia we have constructed policies which can be followed by any editor regardless of his personal convictions or motivations which will result in unbiased articles. Editors on any side of an issue or even editors who do not care about an issue can still make the right decisions for an article.

I'm glad to see that you want unbiased articles. Do you really believe that the DOM article is unbiased? I certainly can't see how it is either fair, balanced, or completely factual.

Do you see any genuine faith in their translation of the Bible or their effort to "resurrect" the "Dominion of Melchizedek" from antiquity?

No. Regardless of the fraud claims, the religious claims are utterly without merit and would probably be theologically irrelevant even if they had any merit.

I suspected you would have this opinion, but how much of their faith have you studied?

Your use of the pronoun "their" is disingenuous, but not unexpected. Jdavidb 13:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is disingenuous about my use of the word "their". Are you suggesting that I am one of them? Personally, I am a Christian Scientist, not a Melchizedekian. There is a connection in as much as DOM's translation of the Bible is based on the writings of Mary Baker Eddy. She is the founder of Christian Science. Do you also find Christian Science to be utterly without merit and/or theologically irrelevant?Johnski 16:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply to message on my talk page) John, It goes far beyond seeing the points that you are making. I'm willing to, but again as I've said countless times the rules regarding sighting creditable sources need to be followed. Should someone break the rules simply to have a fair and balanced article as you are stating. No, they shouldn't. And even if I did, someone else would come along and point out the lack of creditable proof and pull the claim out of the article (rightfully so).

I've left you some link to the guidelines Wikipedia uses. I also asked for the links that SamSpade was talking about (SBS, ect) on the DOM page. If you could leave a message with those on my talk page, I'll look at them. Davidpdx 10/8/05 1:34 (UTC)

Helpful links

Here are some helpful links regarding policies on using sources on Wikipedia:

Wikipedia:Cite sources Wikipedia:Reliable sources Wikipedia:No original research Wikipedia:Verifiability

I have posted new comments on the DOM talk page again. Most likely I won't get around to putting comments again until Friday or so. Davidpdx 10/5/05 13:30 (UTC)

David, thank you for these helpful references. Even though you have personally attacked me, I will try to be friendly towards you. I apologize for anything that I've written that may have offened you.Johnski 17:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response to message left on my talk page

The truth is there is NO consensus. Because the two of you claim this trash is true, doesn't not make it so. It is absolutely ridiclous to claim consensus. I have posted on BOTH your your talk pages about consensus on Wikipedia and neither one of you seem to care about it. I will continue to revert the page back to the one that was last agreed upon and report all reverts by both you as vandalism. If you want a revert war, simply bring it on. It is not only myself that disagrees with what you are posting, there are others who have made comments on the DOM page regarding the lack of proof you base your article on. I will be posting this on both of your talk pages in order to make sure you see this message. Davidpdx 11:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Johnski, consensus means we talk it over on the article talk page and all agree. Until you get that, we don't have consensus. So, prove your case on the article talk page and secure agreement. Otherwise, you are not entitled to make your changes. Continuing to make these changes is disruption of Wikipedia. Eventually it will result in escalation of reports against you and could cause you to have your editing privileges restricted or revoked.

In short: stop it. Don't make another change to articles until you get it agreed to on article talk pages. Jdavidb (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jdavidb, this is not in response to the question I asked of you. Please answer it about Christian Science. You have totally missed the point of what I am trying to do with the Melchizedek article, as I've backed off the original position and only tried to make a compromise using stuff that there is consensus on, just rewriting it to tone it down. I didn't revert it just to revert it but because there was vandalism on the version version that you seem to approve.Johnski 06:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was vandalism by someone else, which was reverted, that is true. But I do not agree upon the alternate version that you had posted on the talk page. If you simply reverted back to the version that was there then that is fine. I looked at the current article and to me it looked like the article you posted was the "alternate version" that was posted by you. If it was that version that you posted, I would remind you that there was no consensus. Hopefully that clears up the issue.

Please be aware that that I am not the only one watching this page. There are two or three other people that are monitoring articles in terms of what is posted. Certainly these people agree with me that the things you are posting do not have enough proof behind them to merit changing the articles. You can disagree with any of us as much as you want, but I doubt it will change any of our opinions. Davidpdx 06:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your email

Hi David,

You promised to post your email address but I don't remember seeing it. I think I could clear up some of the points a lot easier and faster if we could use email.Johnski 07:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did post me email address. If you go back and look at an old version of your talk page you'll find it. I only left it there for a few days because of the possiblity of spammers getting it. However, I would suggest reading the DOM talk page before you do that. It probably will clear up where I stand at this point.

To put it bluntly, I've asked for web links or other methods of proof in terms of specific points you claim in the compromise article discussion. Both you and Samspade claim you've showed me that proof. When I've asked for those, they could just as well be put on my user talk page. In one instance, Samspade even went as far as insulting me on the DOM talk page. Both of you have reverted articles and lack a good faith effort in the discussion. Therefore, I have archived the discussion and posted my reasoning for withdrawing from discussions on a compromise article. Davidpdx 07:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated on the DOM page, I'm unwilling to work on a compromise. I don't have anything else to say. Davidpdx 10:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Deletion David Even Pedley

Comment: Merging requires the edit history of the source of the merged info to be kept. Therefore, merge and delete is not a valid vote. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. - 131.211.51.34 09:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow another bs move by Johnski and unsigned at that. This is from the person who tried to convience me that blogs could be used as a creditable source. Speaking of creditablity, you are shooting yourself in the foot in terms of your creditablity by the statements you make. You purposly lie and misrepresent the rules of Wikipedia to push DOM. In fact, here is the true interpretation of the rule you misquoted: "An AFD decision is either to "keep" or "delete" the article.

AFD discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to "keep". The AFD decision may also include a strong recommendation for an additional action such as a "merger" or "redirect". In many cases, the decision to "keep" or "delete" may be conditional on the community's acceptance of the additional action. These recommendations do represent the community consensus and also should not be overturned lightly. However, these are actions which can be taken by any editor and do not require "admin powers". If they are challenged, the decision should be discussed and decided on the respective article Talk pages. A second AFD discussion is unnecessary."

You continue to make statements in bad faith and revert things without consensus, why should anyone trust you? Davidpdx 10:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Davidpdx, You are way off base again. I'm not 131.211.51.34 and my only intention is to bring "balance to the force" so to speak. Hope that Star Wars expresion humors you a little.Johnski 19:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite.207.47.122.10 08:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Just another bad faith move by you. I'm going to start documenting all the bs that you are doing and report it. I couldn't care less what your response is, so don't bother giving one:

I protest the vote from 207.47.122.10. This is clearly the IP address of Johnski, the main person involved in vandalizing numerous pages on Wikipedia. He is adding several pages in order to push DOM and make it seem legitimate. Each person has one vote on a rfd. It's time Johnski learns to follow the rules. Davidpdx 13:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Solkope

I posted a reply on Solkope. I'm walking away from this argument because in my opinion, it is like tossing my energy down a black hole... RfC is probably the only way this will ever be resolved.--Isotope23 13:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilante

I started this article and hope that someone will help to improve it:

A Wikilante is a rogue member of the Wikipedian community that takes matters into his/her own hands by blocking honest attempts to improve an article. The word Wikilante was inspired by the meaning of Vigilante. It was developed as a result of wikilante behavior on certain controversial articles published on Wikipedia. It is not to be confused with those dedicated Wikipedians that vigilantly revert vandalism, and attempt to block disruptive behavior.

Why don't you just follow the rules instead? You do recognize that while this behavior bothers you, protecting the Wiki is considered a value around here, not an undesirable thing. Jdavidb [[talk • contribs]] 14:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Answered this on your talk page and added sentence about good vigilance. Johnski 17:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilante, Hurry, read all about it!

Dear Davidpdx, you and your ilk have inspired me to create a new article, Wikilante. I hope the fact that you have been the primary cause of this, causes you to give pause, and see how you have become a vigilante. I'm sure under different circumstances, we could be friends, and I still hope that we can forgive each other, and move in that direction. Hurry, rush and nominate it for deletion before someone else does. SincerelyJohnski 07:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You know that could qualify as taunting, which could get you banned. I'd very much caution you on your tone. Yes, you are correct I am keeping track of what is going on and I am very vigilant. If your creating articles purely for the fun of it, then you need to get your head examined.Davidpdx 09:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Answered this on your talk page and added sentence about good vigilance. I'm truely sorry if you felt that I was taunting you! Johnski 17:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:David Even Pedley

Hello, Johnski. I'm sorry, I wish I could help, but I will be away over the weekend and I cannot be tied up in any issues right now. You can still file an RfC yourself (just go to WP:RFC and follow the instructions there), or, better yet, you may want to request for someone to help work out your differences with Davidpdx at WP:M. Again, I'm sorry I cannot be of assistance right now. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 22:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus Issue Bokak Atoll

There is consensus and glad to see we cleared up part of our misunderstanding Dear Davidpdx, there is consensus over the fact that the Iroijlaplap of Taongi did grant DOM a 50 years sovereign lease, so please stop removing that fact from the article. It is in the protected article and has been in every article about DOM for months.

I'm glad that we were able to clear up that I had reason to believe you had approved one of the versions here. Thank you for your honesty. SincerelyJohnski 17:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

No you are mistaken, there is not consensus about this issue. What do I need to say to be more clear about it. Davidpdx 03:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Gentlemen, I'll tell you what, you disclose your IP addresses, I'll disclose mine. If you agree, I'll disclose mine first. Otherwise, myself and others might be led to believe you have something to hide. I see that KAJ was a leader in that regard, and you were not forthcoming in showing the same good faith. Sincerely,Johnski 05:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have done nothing wrong, so why should I disclose my IP address? I am not using multiple user names and IP addresses. If you would simply follow the rules of Wikipedia, this would all be moot point. Don't try to pawn this on myself or anyone else.

Furthermore, the message you copied off someone else's user page was NOT to you. In other words, mind your own business. Davidpdx 08:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Dear David, would you be interested in mediation under a wiki mediator? If so this could avoid the more difficult process of arbitration. Sincerely, Johnski 07:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is nothing to talk about. Davidpdx 08:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear David, What reason? What about the fact that you just reverted a perfectly good version about Taongi after I proved there is consensus for the facts described about Melchizedek and you called it vandalism after a third party suggested you stop that behavior? Do you prefer arbitration?Johnski 15:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If that's what you want, bring it on. I'm sure there will be more the a couple people willing to attest to your behavior. I'm not the only person who has reverted you vandalism. There are at least 5 or 6 other legitimate users that have reverted the vandalism by you and your sockpuppets. Davidpdx 16:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation is a better means of resolving this matter than artibtation. I'd prefer to work this out with you man to man, but since you are unwilling to try, the first approach according to what has been suggested to me by other Wikipedians, is mediation, but if you refuse to participate it is impossible for a mediator to help us. If we end up in arbitration, I think your unwillingness to accept mediation will work against you. There are no witnesses needed because the record speaks for itself. Have you read how Mediation works here? I suggest you read that before making your final decision for refusal to mediate our differences. Johnski 05:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated and once again you have IGNORED the fact, I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE REVERTING YOUR vandalism. You should wake up and see that there are MANY users that have a problem with you NOT JUST ME. Are you that ignorant that you can't understand that? Davidpdx 01:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you have misrepresented the truth. First of all, arbitration is a "last resort" based on what I read. Second, you are sadly mistaken that there are no witnesses. In truth, the both sides have the chance to make a statement to make their points. Third, I see do not see ANYWHERE where it says that someone's unwillingness to accept mediation would work against them. Fourth, threatening to take some one to arbitration is in bad taste, lacks good faith and is plain wrong. I realize the first thing out of your mouth will be to deny the fact that you threatened me with arbitration, but there is now a record of it on both your talk page as well as mine. Fifth, I'm not the one that created an article critical of specific people on Wikipedia (Wikilante). Again, this is something that is in fact on record that you did and you can't deny it. Davidpdx 10:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear David, I don't want to piss you off, that is not my intention. Oh, yes, there is a record of that too, and that you again called me a liar while I'm trying to get you to act with proper Wikiquette. I noticed that you dinn't thank me for bring COOL to you attention below. I just want to make peace with you and have honest, progressive dialog with you. I really don't know how i have misrepresented the truth. You pointed, out that arbitration is a "last resort" based on what you read, and that is why I'm suggesting that we ask the help of a mediator. You said that I am sadly mistaken that there are no witnesses, but what I mean is that what we have published is the only witness that we need and it is 100% perfect, unlike human witnesses. It is just my opinion that your unwillingness to accept mediation will work against you. It shows my good faith, and your lack thereof. I wasn't threatening to take you to arbitration, only let you know that that would be my next step (last resort) if you don't accept mediation. Would you prefer I just start arbitration without my giving you the opportunity to reconsider mediation? I didn't mean it in a way to threatened you! Why would I deny the fact that I wrote to you my only remedy is arbitration if you don't accept mediation, and why would I not know there is now a record of it on both your talk page as well as mine? That again is my point that the record is the only witness needed. For mediation there isn't any witness needed, but the record will help the mediator to figure out what is going on between us and give him/her ideas of what direction to go in finding a solution between us. I didn't mention your name on the article I created for Wikipedia (Wikilante), you only gave me the idea from your Vigilante behavior. Remember, I also complimented you for your vigilance. I'll say it again, I admire your vigilance even though it verged if not became what I call Wikilanteism. Again, this is something that is in fact on record that I'm proud of, can't deny it, but neither can you deny the things you have written. BTW, mediation isn't binding, it is only for a third party to help us work out our differences. Arbitration is binding. Cordially, Johnski 05:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly have much better things to do then argue with you. For now, I've decided to stop messing with the DOM articles and to go back to the editing. Yes, I do in fact work on non-DOM articles. If someone else wants to revert your mess, then that's their business. At the same time, that doesn't mean I'll be totally out of the picture. I will keep an eye on things. If you want to take me to arbitration for that, then so be it. Davidpdx 05:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilante

09:38, 27 October 2005 Sjakkalle deleted "Wikilante" (content was: '{{deletebecause|Recreated after speedy deletion, created by a disgruntled user}}A Wikilante is a rogue member of the Wikipedian community that takes ...')

Hello, Sjakkalle, I'm not distruntled. I am disapointed by the phenomena of wikilantism I found from another member of this community, and think the newly created word helps to identify that activity. After creating it, it dawned on me that bringing it to the wikilante's attention, he might communicate with me, which worked a little. When I went to look at the article newly created it was gone, so published it again, but since found the deletion notice after finding it gone once more. Is it possible to suggest this as an article? Can you help me to mediate with the one showing the Wikilante behavior.Johnski 07:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry no, my skills at mediating are not the best in the world and my time is limited right now I'm afraid. If you want to protest against what you view as roguish behaviour, I suggest that you talk to the person politely and explain your concerns. If that fails, look at some of the suggestions at dispute resolution, and in most cases the thing will be solved peaceably. In any case, it is important to keep a cool head because making articles targeted against a user in the article namespace only results in unnecesarily escalating the tensions further, and we don't what that do we? Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DOM

hi, in response to your message, as you'll see my only edit was changing "United States Securities and Exchange Commission" to "U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission", as part of a clean up of links. I don't know much about the DOM, and certainly not enough to get into any debates over it. Hope the dispute gets sorted though. DocendoDiscimus 08:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

E-mail for you, Johnski. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Johnski, there have been numerous allegations of sock puppetry in connection with your user account, and if they can't be sorted out, this account and any associated with it are likely to be blocked. I therefore encourage you to contact me so we can get to the bottom of it. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration

You have been requested to appear as a defendant in an arbitration case against you. You can file any comments on your own behalf at: [1] Davidpdx 08:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a long reply on the DOM talk page. You should fix the comments you made so they do not intrude on others. As I stated on the talk page, it makes it difficult to see who said what when someone does that.

I also pointed out, no one should be editing the article while we are waiting for a decision from arbitration. If you persist, I'll ask for a TRO or for the page to be protected again. This should be common sense. It would be nice gesture if you would refrain from editing any of the articles mentioned in the arbitration filing. Davidpdx 13:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, you should't be commenting on other peoples statements in arbitration. I made the same mistake and it was removed by one of the arbitration committee members shortly after I put a comment under your statement. You recently put a statement under Gene_Poole's comments and I commented under your rebuttle that your comments should also be removed. Davidpdx 14:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Johnski has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Johnski/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be made at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Johnski/Workshop. Fred Bauder 04:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP Article

I wouldn't get too excited at this point. I may have jumped the gun at offering this as a solution. At best, it seems like I'm getting a lackluster response in terms of a consensus. If I could put together a group of at least four people (five including you and myself), that would agree this should be changed, I'd do it. At this point, if I did make the change I feel it's going to cause the situation to blow up and get worse.

Honestly, looking at the arbitration page, it appears that the case is going to be heard and pretty soon. Last time I looked it was 3/1/0 which means one more vote is needed to hear the case. There is one other case in line ahead of us, so I think that by the end of the week this is going to go forward. Right now, I'm asking for a cease fire. As I said, I've left messages with several other people and I'm not hearing anyone that is wild about the idea. I wish I could have come up with something. Davidpdx 13:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would not blame Gene for the lack of consensus, others have not answered messages left on their talk page or questioned why we should change it. At least one is "away" for awhile. I know you don't want to hear this, but there are some serious things that do need to be worked out in arbitration. I'm not going to go into the reasons, because it's pointless, second because it's repetitive (in fact they have been said over and over again). At this point, it's the only thing I can say. I do believe we are close to getting some movement on the arbitration case. It is logical to wait a few days and see what happens. Davidpdx 11:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EDM, perhaps you could email me the note that Davidpdx thinks will get me mad. I doubt anything we are doing here could get me "mad", or you can post it here if you like. I hope that my comments to you haven't caused you to write things that would tend to make me mad. We can agree to disagree, and it isn't necessary that we see eye to eye. I believe you have a lot to offer Wikipedia including the subject article under discussion. Sincerely, Johnski 08:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The note that I was referring to, was simply a message he left on my talk page referring to the comments you've already found. If you want to go trolling for evidence against me, do it yourself. EDM is not part of the arbitration case. Davidpdx 04:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jbregehr

Please consider reverting the weird changes that this user is making to the DoM article so that I don't violate 3RR. Thanks. -EDM 02:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the changes that EDM was referring to have been reverted and I am watching the page very closely. We have explained to this user what is going on, so I believe he/she won't revert it anymore. Davidpdx 04:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hatred for Christian Science?

I'm tired of playing your games.

In this edit, you state, "Certainly your hatred for Christian Science affects your judgment here?" That's completely unfounded and irrelevant, to boot.

As long as you let such unfounded and irrational comments stand, I will not participate in discussions with you other than where may be necessary on an article talk page, since it is clear that you will willingly ignore what I say, misread what I say, add your own opinions and assumptions to what I say, and misrepresent what I say. Since I have never said anything about Christian Science, it ought to be clear to anyone that that is the case here. In the future I suggest that if you want to assert anything on Wikipedia about my feelings, opinions, or previous statements that you post a link to a diff confirming what you are saying or else not say it. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 21:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your response contains additional unfounded statements. I'll point them out and even offer some response. I may not do so in the future. Again, I point out your practice of willingly ignoring, misreading, adding your own opinions and assumptions, and misrepresenting what I say. If you'll limit yourself to stating things I've said or things you can somehow document, you can probably overcome this problem.

Example: "Isn't it normal for members of your church to hate Christian Science?" Before making such a statement, it would be advisable to look around for some statement from myself, my church, or my church's leaders to show that belief. You won't find one. If you'll set for yourself this rule: "I will not post anything without a link to evidence backing up why I think it is the case," you'll help yourself overcome this problem. In this case, after searching around for awhile, you would hopefully have begun to realize there is no evidence for thinking this way, and that you are relying on an assumption with no basis at all.

The answer to your disingenuous and irrelevant question is "No." The question you want to ask yourself is: "Why did I have the idea that it was normal for members of the same church as Jdavidb to hate Christian Science, since I've never actually read anything to that effect and, in fact, if pressed couldn't possibly provide a link to a place where any of them has said something like that?"

You'll note that the above paragraph is the first time I have ever made any statement about the Church of Christ, Scientist, anywhere on Wikipedia. If you were under the impression I had ever said anything else, it is because you are willfully reading your own assumptions into my deliberate silence.

I may or may not choose to dignify your future comments with a response, at my discretion. I likely will not.

In fact, I hereby request that you refrain from posting on my talk page again, unless it is to admit to and retract any of your previous behavior that I have documented in the evidence page in the arbitration proceeding against you. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 22:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jdavidb, Now that you have stated that you do not hate Christian Science, I apologize to you and to every member of your chuch for publishing those types of questions here. I had a friend that was a member of your church that told me he hated Christian Science. He wasn't so friendly after he learned of my faith, but that was many years ago, and of course, he doesn't speak for you or any other member of your church.

After reading through our exchanges, I further question whether you made the following statements off the cuff, because it seems you had no idea that the Melchizedek Bible and therefore the religion of DOM is somehow based on the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, "I see no grain of truth there"... "the religious claims are utterly without merit and would probably be theologically irrelevant even if they had any merit." I don't suppose you really want to study the writings of Mary Baker Eddy or read the entire Melchizedek Bible before you express opinions like that, do you? In order to demonstrate that you had some basis for making such opinions, can you tell us what the Melchizedekian religious claims are? That of course will not prove that you knew the claims at the time you gave such an opinion, but it will show that you are making an effort to show good faith on your part. If a person gives an opinion in a public forum like this, he should be prepared to explain the basis for such an opinion.

This is a game to you but NOT to me. Cordially, Johnski 01:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I very much appreciate your apology. In turn, I offer what apology I can for any member of my church who might have said hateful things to you, though just as they cannot speak for me, I also cannot speak for them. I am sorry that it happened, though.

Here's all I know about the alleged "religion" of DOM:

They claim to have a "translation" of the Bible, but clearly don't know what a translation is. What they have instead produced is a commentary or "study Bible." It could perhaps be called a paraphrase, but given the clear intent to introduce original thought rather than reflect the concepts expressed by the original authors, it is by no means a translation.
Given this fact, that they are either ignorant of what a "translation" is, or else willing to play fast and loose with the definition in order to imply more significance to their "Bible," they clearly have nothing to offer in the realm of religious scholarship.
They claim to be a "sovreignty" or "nation" of Melchizedek, restored from Bible times. Since no such such nation is mentioned in Scripture, let alone designated as significant, this is another irrelevant religious claim.
They claim to be based off of the religion of Christian Science.
They've been connected to widescale banking fraud.

That's all I need to know. In order to ascertain their religious significance, either #1 or #2 is all I need to know. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 04:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Couple more comments:

It might be wise not to assume you know the general attitude or belief of any particular church or religion based on what any one member says. In my experience you have to have a lot of data points to know what a religion beliefs: official texts and statements, perspective from practicing officials or teachers of the religion, perspective of multiple average members, and perspective from members in different locations due to differences in geography. These different data points don't always agree. If you've only got a statement from one person, you almost never have enough to determine what a particular religion believes.

All my life until a couple of years ago my grandparents lived across the street from a couple who were members of Christian Science. They had the same surname as my fourth grade science teacher who often made comments that made me think he was probably also a member of Christian Science, and I suspect possibly a relative of theirs. My grandparents always spoke fondly of that couple, though they never got to be more than just neighborhood acquaintances. There was never any animosity over religion in evidence from either side, and certainly not hatred. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 04:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I very much appreciate your apology too.

I'm not going to try to change your mind about what you have written, but just to let you know that I found theirPreface to clearly set forth what their work is, and it is not misleading to me. Since I actually took the time to read it, and the entire work, it seemed to do what it claims to do, i.e. interpret the metaphor, etc. It seems like a genuine effort to me.

Genesis, Psalms and Hebrews seem to teach that the government of Melchizedek is both sovereign and eternal. Being that Melchizsedek is an etneral king (sovereign) and has an (eternal) territory, Jerusalem (or the entire earth) or if you look at Daniel 7 "Dominion will be given to the Saints." I find their concept both compelling and biblical. Have you seen the opinion letter [2] published on the DOM web site written by one Geoffrey Thayer, JD which goes into this stuff, and about their claim to the entire earth based on scriptures? Their efforts seem to have no less authority than any other religion, just that they haven't been doing it as long as the ones that are more venerable.

If you study the subject more carefully you will see that it is only some banks they have licensed that have been connected to widescale banking fraud not the DOM itself. The vatican had its own banking scandal. I really don't see what banking fraud has to do with their religious faith. I can't find where they teach people to enter into banking business for fraud. And it doesn't appear that there is any ongoing fraud by their banking community, as the news of that stuff is about 5 years old.

I agree with you that I went too far in asking the questions I did of you based on one personal experience, and appreciate your sharing with me your own experiences. Sincerely, Johnski 05:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bullying Comments on my talk page

I have nothing to say, other then what is being said at arbitration. Yes, you did call me spineless. Davidpdx 01:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said many times, I don't have to reveal my IP address. If you thought about it enough I'm sure you could figure it out, but I'm not going to do your investigative work. I have no sockpuppets or meatpuppets. There is going to be a finding of fact against you. You can argue all you want about it, but it will happen. Thanks for calling me spineless yet again.

By the way, the entry of DOM on the micronation page has been there for almost a year. If you go back into the history of the page, you'll see it probably wasn't put there by GP, but someone else. It wasn't until July 31st when you began removing it on a regular basis that it became a problem. Feel free to look for yourself, I'm not lying.

This is my last reply to you, anything else needs to be on the record in arbitration. Davidpdx 01:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DOM article

I think you'll do better to wait until the outcome of the arbitration before attempting to edit on this subject again, and/or to propose all changes you want to make on the talk page and obtain consensus before proceeding. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 14:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking

Have you seen the proposed arbcom ruling? It says, "The locus of this dispute is edit warring and POV editing of Dominion of Melchizedek and related articles. The edit warring is sustained, and marked by aggressive editing by Johnski and a host of apparent associates."

Then it says, "Johnski, and his numerous puppets, are reasonably believed to be associated with the Dominion of Melchizedek and are capable of using a wide variety of IPs to access Wikipedia."

And finally, "Dominion of Melchizedek and associated articles, shall be semi-protected. If necessary, Johnski, or any other editor believed by an administrator to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Johnski, may be blocked indefinitely by any administrator."

You have three times inserted the same thing against consensus. I am blocking you indefinitely. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy against sustained and aggressive edit warring. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Note to sysops: Unblocking yourself should almost never be done. If you disagree with the block, contact another administrator. -- Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tom: Is it really true that one person, Davidpdx, can determine consensus? He reverted without giving a valid reason. I asked him and he said that I was a known DOM person or something like that which isn't true (only can be assumed) and that the edition was whitewashing, without any explanation as to which part he considered whitewash. Was it the part that said the State Dept called DOM a fraud that he considered "whitewashing" or quoting from CBS? or adding the word "country" to the "non-existent" reference to the SEC? By the way, that is more accurate because it is the last word by the SEC. If Davidpdx would give logical reasons helping me to understand his concerns, we wouldn't have ended up in arbcom. Sincerely, Johnski 06:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me if I would intervene here. I've thought about it and decided that it would be inappropriate.

I think you need to take notice of the arbitration case. If you want to return to Wikipedia and edit somewhere else, just open an account and do so, but it appears that your behavior during editing of the Melchizadek article has found to be comprehensively bad for the encyclopedia and you should stop trying to have anything to do with it.

There are nearly a million articles in the English Wikipedia, there are many tasks that need to be done. I'm sure you'd be welcome if you could find something useful to do. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]